DFTS_Solicitation_Q_and_As__200-221.pdf

Question Response 200 Reference: USTRANSCOM Answers to Questions 129 and 130

a) We would like to seek clarification on when LTL EXP may be applied. Is EXP only applicable when the shipment must be picked up within 4 hours?

b) Is the EXP accessorial only applicable if the Transportation Officer agrees with the application of the EXP accessorial?

c) If the shipper does not request LTL EXP in the 219, must the contractor consider the cost of LTL EXP in determining the “lowest cost option available to satisfy the requirement?”

d) If the shipper ordered an “aircraft,” requiring transportation in an aircraft and the shipment moved via substituted-motor-for-air service without permission of the shipper, would the contractor be entitled to bill for LTL EXP, provided the price was lower than “air” and the shipment would not have made the MDD if shipped LTL?

e) If the shipper ordered an “aircraft,” requiring transportation in an aircraft and the shipment moved via substituted-motor-for-air service without permission of the shipper, would the Government contend that because there is surface transportation that meets the MDD (i.e. by substituted-motor-for-air service), albeit at a premium price, the contractor must use the LTL without application of the LTL EXP accessorial?

f. A 20% premium is often insufficient to compensate the contractor for the premium cost of expedited LTL service. The only way for the contractor currently to obtain compensation is to increase the proposed LTL rate itself to factor in the price risk that service will be expedited. Would USTRANSCOM considering creating a separate LTL Expedited line haul rate, rather than applying a set percentage as an accessorial? We believe that such a line haul, if precisely defined, would save the Government money.

a) No, if a shipment needs to be picked up prior to 8 operation hours as stated in Option 1 under paragraph 1.3.6.1 of the PWS, then accessorial code PUC will apply as incorporated in Amendment 9. LTL EXP may be utilized when an LTL shipment is needed to be shipped in less than standard transit time and the cost is less than shipping under time-definite service level.

b) Yes.

c) The contractor should always consider the lowest cost option available to satisfy the requirement. If the shipper believes EXP is warranted, they should consult the Transportation Officer d-e) These questions are no longer necessary because the Government is now following a "time definite service level," as requested by industry. Contractor should make the determination of the lowest cost solution to meet the MDD based on all the capabilities they have. However, billing shall reflect the service(s) provided and EXP accessorial shall only be applied by the government.

f) No.

201 Reference: PWS at 1.3.2.1.1 and Answer 135

Brokering – The answer that the “prime contractor can only broker (or arrange the transportation of freight) to one entity below itself” is confusing as it appears to directly conflict with the PWS at 1.3.2.1.1, which states: “If the Contractor is an asset-based company, the Contractor may broker down one level of carrier. If the Contractor is not an asset-based company, the Contractor may broker down two levels of carriers.” Please confirm that the PWS language at 1.3.2.1.1.

applies.

The language in the PWS regarding brokering applies as the government wants to ensure both "asset and non-asset" based providers can offer services on this contract while understanding the brokering requirements.

The third paragraph under 1.2.1 of the PWS has been deleted to avoid confusion.

202 Based on our initial analysis of DCMA historical data for FY 14 we found 26,490 lanes with a total of 62,792 shipments that were not included as 3/5 digit zip, origin/destination pairs in the pricing matrix. The breakdown of our findings are as follows:

i) 24,617 LTL Lanes representing 39,993 shipments

ii) 1,873 TL Lanes representing 22,799 shipments We strongly recommend that the gov't add these Origin/Destination pairs in the 3 digit zip to 3 digit zip pricing matrix. Per mile rates can vary greatly to individual locations in different states. Variations of over 30% are not uncommon. On State to State pricing offerors are forced to provide "worst case scenario" pricing.

Based on the volumes this could unnecessarily add tens of millions of dollars of expense to the taxpayer. Inadvertently, the government is setting the conditions for a less than favorable pricing proposal and adding additional risk to pricing by asking for generic state-to-state rates, rather than specifying zip-to-zip data.

which was stated in the DCMA historical data. In our industry we leverage market competitive rates by providing specific origins and destinations, not generic state-to-state lanes.

State to State pricing is highly subjective and risky both to the offeror and to the Government. It deviates from industry best practices. We recommend that the Government incorporate as many zip to zip origin destination pairs as can be supported by historical data in order to minimize the use of the state-to-state rate tables.

USTRANSCOM has considered your request, but has declined to revise the pricing rate table to DFTS. The rate table was developed taking into consideration the future outlook of required shipments.

The historical shipping data is not indicitive of the Government’s estimated projections of DMCA movements under the DFTS contract. Also, state-to-state rates do not deviate from industry best practices. Commercial contracts exist today with region-to-region and even nation-wide rates which are more volatile than state-to-state rates. Market research reflects this to be an acceptable commercial practice. State-to-state rates are a necessary requirement for DFTS. The Government has to have the ability to ship to any location within scope of the contract without having to negotiate rates for every shipment to support DoD mission readiness.

203 Reference: Blanks in DCMA Data

a) There are many blanks in the data that appear to comprise a large volume of shipments that we are not able to analyze. Would you please provide this data?

b) If you are not able to provide this data, is there any additional information you could provide about the data that would be useful to offerors?

Revised DMCA historical data was provided via FedBizOpps on 28 May 2015.

204 Reference: HAZ classes in DCMA data

a) The data that was released has HAZ classes that do not apply to this contract due to exclusions. Are there other shipments in this data set that may not apply to DFTS? If so, can you please identify them or provide us with information on how to identify them?

b) Are shipments with HAZ classes excluded from the Government estimates used to evaluate pricing?

Revised DMCA historical data was provided via FedBizOpps on 28 May 2015 that no longer contains the excluded classes.

205 Reference: DCMA data

a) Does the historic DCMA data represent USTRANSCOM’s estimated shipment activity for DCMA under the DFTS contract?

b) If the DCMA-estimated shipment activity and the DLA-estimated shipment activity materialize, would the contract value exceed its ceiling?

c) Will DCMA offer shipments under the DFTS contract upon contract award and the completion of site implementation? If not, when does USTRANSCOM estimate that DCMA shipments will be provided?

d)One line item in the FY14 data set indicates that over 7,000,000 lbs were shipped from Ft. Carson to Bicknell, IN on October 16, 2013. Using this line item as an example, please advise:

d1) Whether the DCMA data set is recorded at the shipment/BOL level or at the order level?

d2) If the shipments were multi-stops, whether such transactions were recorded in the data set as more than one record or, alternatively, were combined into one line item/order?

a) No.

b) No.

c) Yes, DCMA will offer shipments once their sites are implemented under DFTS.

d) This line no longer exists within the updated DCMA historical data provided on 28 May 2015.

206 Reference: Factor 5-Price, Amendment 7, at p. 11.

Factor 5 states:

a) The index categories used to adjust transportation pricing of time-definite service level requirements will be for NAICS 448111, Scheduled Air Freight.

Since the contractor will be afforded a weekly Fuel Rate Adjustment (FRA) for trucking transportation, the GII index for 484122 is exclusive of fuel costs. The FRA for surface transportation will be based on a fuel cost baseline of $2.50 per gallon and surcharges will be applied according to PWS Appendix Q, TR-12 Fuel Related Rate Adjustment Policy, Annex A.

Will the weekly FRA apply to shipments transported pursuant to the “time-definite service level requirement” that travel exclusively via surface transportation? Or, will the time-definite service level requirements be shipped without a FRA adjustment, even if they travelled exclusively via truck?

b) Why does the Solicitation apply a FSC for trucking, and not for the time-definite service level mode?

c) Although the diesel fuel and jet fuel indices vary from each other (i.e., sometimes diesel fuel is more expensive than jet fuel and vice versa), the net difference has been insignificant in recent years. Since a portion of the time-definite service level shipment will travel exclusively via surface transportation, would USTRANSCOM consider extending the FRA to the time-definite service level mode?

a) Fuel Rate Adjustment will not be applied to the time-definite service level. Rates should be all inclusive.

b) No FSC exists for time-definite service level

c) No.

207 Reference: PWS 1.3.6.6. Task Area 6, Subtask 6-Equipment Substitution, Amendment 7, Attachment 1

a) PWS 1.3.6.6. states: “The Contractor will determine the appropriate mode (TL, LTL, Scheduled, Specialized, Time-Definite Service, or Rail) to meet the delivery requirement; however, the shipper will select the equipment type. The Contractor may request/offer equipment substitution for shipments and the shipper must approve. Any substitutions for the convenience of the contractor, will be at no cost to the Government.” What meaning, if any, does the shipper’s selection of QQ have for the contractor?

b) When the contractor selects the time-definite service level mode and the shipper selects QQ, must the shipment travel in an aircraft?

c) Is there any action that the Government is authorized to take pursuant to the DFTS Contract to require the contractor to transport a shipment in an aircraft?

d) If the shipper selects QQ, must the contractor use the time-definite service level mode?

a) If QQ is selected as an equipment type it is expected that a shipment would be moved under the time-definite service level

b) No.

c) No.

d) Yes, unless the contractor believes a cheaper mode is available to meet the MDD, then the contractor should coordinate with the Transportation Officer to see if mode shifting is an option.

208 PWS 1.3.3.5 Task Area 3, Subtask 5, Attachment 1, Amendment 7, and DFTS PWS App. B and Answer 94

a) PWS 1.3.3.5 states: “The Contractor shall select the most cost effective level of service and mode to meet the shipment requirements; however, the contractor shall only charge accessorials based upon the final mode (i.e. motor, time-definite service, or rail).” Question 94.d asked: “Carriers transport almost all cargo from planes via surface transportation. In such a case, where ground transportation is used to transport shipments from a plane to destination, what is the “final mode of transportation used?” USTRANSCOM responded, “If at anytime freight ships by plane, air accessorials apply.” Because USTRANSCOM changed the Solicitation, DFTS PWS App. B to reflect that time-definite service level accessorials will apply to the “time-definite service level,” will the Government change its answer to indicate that if a shipment is transported pursuant to a time-definite service level, the time-definite service accessorials apply, regardless of equipment used?

b) If the contractor transports a shipment pursuant to a time-definite service level mode, will it be entitled to receive the applicable time-definite service level accessorial, even if the shipment does not travel in an aircraft?

a) Yes, freight is transported pursuant to a time-definite service level, the time-definite service accessorials apply, regardless of equipment used.

B) Yes.

209 Reference: PWS at 1.2.1, 1.3.2.1.1 and Answer 135

Brokering – The answer that the “prime contractor can only broker (or arrange the transportation of freight) to one entity below itself” is confusing as it appears to directly conflict with the PWS at §§ 1.2.1 and 1.3.2.1.1, which states: “Only single brokering is permitted for shipments that move by truck (i.e. Less than Truckload (LTL), Truck Load (TL), or Scheduled trucks). There is no brokering restriction on shipments for rail or time-definite service level.” Please confirm that PWS §§ 1.2.1 and 1.3.2.1.1 apply, i.e. there are no brokering restrictions for rail or time-definite service levels.

The paragraph in question under 1.2.1 of the PWS has been removed via amendment 9 to avoid confusion. There are no brokering restrictions for rail or time-definite service levels.

210 Reference: PWS 1.3.6.15 Task Area 6, Subtask 15, Proof of Delivery (“POD”)

– Uploading to Syncada

While the technology allows for uploading a POD with the receiver’s signature and date and time (in Syncada, TMS systems, or a host of other systems), the operational realities are not as clean. PODs are often not available until several days after delivery, especially in the case of truckload where the driver does not return to a terminal every night. This requirement will result in higher prices from carriers, a narrowing of the carrier pool, delays in payment to small businesses, and an increase in working capital float for the prime. Further, commercial industry has not adopted this as a standard operating practice due to many factors, including the fragmented nature of the trucking industry, limited technology resources of the small businesses community, etc. For the rare commercial customers requiring proof of delivery on every shipment, generally a signature field containing the name of the signee is added to the EDI 214 shipment status, and this is considered the proof of delivery. Even this method presents a burden to the small business community because most of them are not EDI-capable. Would USTRANSCOM agree to continue to pay on a 214, and accept uploaded PODs to Syncada for exception management/audit?

Per the Transportation Financial Auditability Working Group, government will require PODs for every shipment prior to payment.

This will provide the government with the necessary audit trail required by the Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD) as part of Financial Improvement Audit Readiness (FIAR) requirements.

211 Due to significant changes in Amendment 7, the large amount of DCMA data released on May 19, and the still unanswered questions that have been timely submitted, we request that USTRANSCOM enlarge the time for submission of proposals by one additional week from June 9 to June 16, 2015 to allow offerors to study the data, re-rate all Air rates to TDD, incorporate changes from Amendment 7 and react to the yet-to-be-received answers to the outstanding questions.

The solicitation has been extended for one week via Amendment 9 posted to FedBizOpps on 28 May 2015.

212 Reference: Factor 5-Price, Amendment 7, at p. 11.

Please confirm the applicable NAICS Code as the NAICS Code for Scheduled Air Freight appears to be 481112.

Yes, the NAICS for Scheduled Air Freight is 481112. The affected documents/references have been revised and incorporated in Amendment 10

213 Reference: Reference Amendment 7, Attachment 2, Rate Table Instructions, Page 4, Number 11

The description for “Weight Band” still references “air shipments”. Please confirm whether the reference to “air” should be to “time-definite service level shipments.”

Yes, instructions have been revised to reference time-definite service level via Amendment 10.

214 Reference: Reference Amendment 7, Attachment 2, Rate Table Instructions, Page 7, Numbers 13 and 13.1

Number 13 indicates that “[t]he extended prices for the annual periods beyond the first annual base year period is calculated…based on the IHS projected escalation year-to-year for NAICS 448111 for time definite service transportation specific line items.” Number 13.1 references “NAICS 448111, Scheduled Air Freight.” Please confirm the following:

a) The NAICS Code for Scheduled Air Freight is 481112 (not 448111); and

b) NAICS 481112 is applicable to time definite service level shipments.

Yes, the NAICS for Scheduled Air Freight has been revised to 481112 in Amendment 10. Yes, NAICS 481112 is applicable to time definite service level shipments. The instructions have been revised accordingly.

215 Reference: Reference Amendment 7, 2A, DFTS Pricing Sheet – LTL, Worksheet 2A Subtotal

Column M explains that “offerors shall propose an Adjustment Factor reprensenting [sic] the percentage…of the GII escalation for each annual period and each category (trucking, air)….” Please confirm that the reference to “air” should be to the “time-definite service level.”

Yes, the reference to “air” has been revised to “time-definite service” via Amendment 10.

216 Reference: Reference Amendment 7, 2B, DFTS Pricing Sheet – TL, TDef, Sched Worksheet 2B Subtotal

Column L references NAICS 448111, Scheduled Air Freight. Please confirm that the reference is to NAICS 481112, Scheduled Air Freight and, if confirmed, correct the reference.

Yes, the NAICS for Scheduled Air Freight has been revised to 481112 in Amendment 10.

217 Reference: Reference Amendment 7, SF 1449, Page 13, Clause 5552.216-9006

The clause 5552.216-9006 Economic Price Adjustment references NAICS Code 448111, Scheduled Freight Air Transportation. Please confirm that the reference should be to NAICS 481112, Scheduled Air Freight. If confirmed, please correct the reference.

Yes, the NAICS for Scheduled Air Freight has been revised to 481112 in Amendment 10.

218 Reference: Reference Amendment 7, Attachment 12 at Page 1

The Instructions for Obtaining IHS Trucking Indices (“Attachment 12 Instructions”) quotes a prior version of the Economic Price Adjustment clause that no longer exists in the Solicitation. Specifically, it states:

For all unit rates and minimum charges with the exception of the air transportation unit rates and minimum charges, the adjustment shall be based on a derived, composite index based on input cost and demand indices from the IHS Global Insight Pricing and Purchasing Industry Forecasting for the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 484122, General Freight Trucking, Long Distance, Less Than Truckload. The derived, composite index to be applied to the trucking unit rates and minimum charges is based on the Input Cost Index (exclusive of fuel) and the Demand Index for NAICS 484122.

Will USTRANSCOM change the quote to reflect the version of the Economic Price Adjustment clause incorporated in Amendment 7?

Yes, the instructions have been revised reflect the version of the Economic Price Adjustment clause via Amendment 10.

219 Reference: PWS 1.3.2.10 Task Area 2, Subtask 10 at Page 17, Amendment 7, Attachment 1

PWS 1.3.2.10 states, in relevant part: “Brokerage services include all customs requirements at both country of origin (US/Canada only) and the destination country based upon local requirements and cargo routing, e.g., air, ocean and truck.” Does the reference to “air” as an example of cargo routing refer to a time-definite service level?

Yes, this paragraph has been revised via Amendment 10.

220 Reference: DFTS Questions and Answers, Question 197 and PWS Appendix F (Equipment Codes)

a. In incorporating time-definite service levels into Amendment 7, the agency removed “Air” from Appendix O (Glossary). Will the agency, in order to maintain consistency, also remove the word “Air” from the top of Appendix F (Equipment Codes)?

b. In order to maintain consistency with the incorporation of time-definite service levels in various parts of the PWS, will the agency revise the “QQ” code in Appendix F to mean “Time-Definite Freight”?

c. In order to maintain consistency with the incorporation of time-definite service levels in various parts of the PWS, will the agency remove the “Other than Freight Forwarder” reference in Appendix F?

a-c) Appendix F has been revised accordingly via Amendment 10.

221 Reference: Answers to Question 148, Reference PWS ¶ 1.3.6.10.2

USTRANSCOM has clearly indicated that the contractor must absorb the costs and liability of repacking if there is a change in mode. Is this still true if the shipper packaged the shipment for ground prior to, for example, the contractor’s selection of air to make the MDD?

Yes.